Summary
noting that a decision not to make a modification retroactive is discretionary, but the reasons for not doing so should be stated on the record
Summary of this case from McIntosh v. McIntoshOpinion
No. 98-2254
Opinion filed May 28, 1999 Rehearing Denied July 1, 1999 JANUARY TERM 1999
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Leonard V. Wood, Judge.
Steven G. Lavely, Bradenton, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
John Z. Pare' and Robert A. DuChemin, of DuChemin Associates, Orlando, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
We affirm the court's judgment in determining that the songs written by the husband prior to the marriage are not marital assets. We also affirm its decision not to require that the husband's obligations be secured, if for no other reason, because it was not requested below.
However, we must reverse the child support, alimony and attorney's fees award because the court failed to determine the husband's income. On remand, the court should reconsider these awards after appropriately determining the husband's income. If the court elects not to apply any resulting modification award retroactively to the date the petition was filed, then it should state its reasons for not doing so.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.